Re: Not wanting to throw a wrench in things

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joshua D. Drake [mailto:jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com]
> Sent: 20 December 2004 21:19
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: PostgreSQL www
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] Not wanting to throw a wrench in things
>
>
> >>I believe that there should be recognition for the work that people
> >>do to help support the project, but I don't think that we need the
> >>sponsored banners to do so. I think a sponsors page is enough.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >There are over 200 mirror providers who are all entitled to a banner.
> >
> >
> Who don't get one a banner...

Sorry, don't understand what you mean?

so how is this any different and no
> they aren't "entitled".

Yes they are. That is something they have all been offered in return for
hosting a mirror. See http://www.postgresql.org/mirrors-howto.html

>
> >Adding them or even 25% or so to a single page would be a pita.
> >
> >
> Put the banner on the mirror page. Or again have a sponsors
> page that has a category:
>
> Internet Resource Providers:
> Mirrors: USA, France ...
> Relays: ...
> etc...

Can't see that getting many hits ;-)

> >I have been toying with the idea of adding some SSI code to
> the footer
> >of the new site, and allowing mirrors to enable SSI and include a
> >non-mirrored file containing their name - resulting in
> something like:
> >"Mirror sponsored by: XYZ Widget Corp".
> >
> >
> Ick. I personally wouldn't like that. Why not just allow
> them to use the footer directive in Apache if they choose?

That's a possibility. How badly will it muck up the formatting though?

> >That of course, doesn't help the FTP mirrors...
> >
> >
> Have their name under the link for the mirror on the mirror
> page.

Another possibility, though we would need to tweak the formatting
somewhat to accommodate that (even a name like Command Prompt Inc. would
need a lot more room than is there now). That would work for the web
mirrors as well of course.

> Well we could if we used their API. I might be able to get
> special permission to get a greater search quota if we did
> that.
>
> Although... in this instance I don't think the "look" is relevant.
> Google is a huge brand and their search engine is better than
> anything we are going to come up with.

Agreed it's a much better engine, but fine tuning queries to specific
parts of the sites might be more difficult.

Not to mention that we would have to wait up to a month (or whatever the
Google cycle currently is) for posts on archives and news etc. to get
archived. That is definitely not a option imho.

Regards, Dave